Publisher

The length of the papers: max 15 pages (about 5000 – 6000 words).

The editor of the IESS 2022 proceedings will be EDP Sciences

The proceedings will be published under a CC license by EDP Sciences on the Web of Conferences platform where the IESS 2.1 proceedings can be downloaded. 

The paper must be formatted according to the EDP guidelines (170 x 250 mm paper size, one-column format ) and be submitted on the EASYCHAIR platform by means of this link: https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=iess22

Every IESS 2.2 accepted paper will receive a special DOI name and be indexed Clarivate Analytics, DOAJ, Google Scholar, and ProQuest.

Rules

– Every accepted paper must be reviewed by at least 2 reviewers, who have no conflict of interest with the authors and the subject of the paper

– One person can be the co-author of up to 2 accepted papers in the IESS 2.2 conference

– The leader of a track can decide the maximum number of papers which can be submitted

Checklist for paper evaluation

Problematic

  • Did the authors indicate what’s the issue/problem?
  • Was the literature review/ theoretical background information provided adequate to understand the objectives/purposes of the study?

Originality and scientific contribution

  • Did the authors explain why the study was undertaken?
  • What are the issues to be resolved/investigated or constraints to overcome?
  • What are expected outcomes/newness/innovativeness of the study?

Method

  • Was the selected method pertinent for the study?
  • Have the authors argued for their contribution to explore the investigated domain?
  • Have the authors placed their contributions within the framework of Service Science?
  • Have the authors indicated clearly the potential limitations of the method used?

Results

  • Have the authors indicated clearly the type of research (e.g., exploratory, experimental, theoretical, application, review, etc.)
  • Did the authors explain the technical correctness (theoretical / experimental)?
  • Were the explorations / experiments / implementations / deployments / validations done appropriately with respect to objectives/purposes of the study?
  • Did the authors sketch the way how to put their conclusions into action, considering, for instance, deployment, skills, digital implementation, resources, processes?

Discussion

  • Were the objectives/purposes of the study met?
  • Have the authors discussed the results in relation to the related work?
  • Did the authors clearly indicate the concluding remarks / what’s next?

The Flyer of Call for papers can be downloaded here